- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.7.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad, respondent No. 2, rejecting the petitioner's representation by which he had prayed for renewal of his mining license. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in excavating over the plot in question. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the petitioner was granted a mining lease for a period from 27.4.1996 to 23.5.2006 for Plot No. 62/1, area 2.5 acres and before expiry of the lease the petitioner had applied for renewal of the lease and the lease was renewed. An agreement was executed on 24.9.2004 renewing the lease from 24.5.2001 to 23.5.2006. The period of said renewal came to an end and the petitioner thereafter made another application for renewal of his lease on 26.5.2006. The said renewal application remained pending. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9109 of 2006, which was disposed off directing the Collector, Allahabad to decide the application of the petitioner. After the direction of this Court to decide the representation of the petitioner ultimately,the District Magistrate, Allahabad vide his order 27.7.2006 rejected the application of the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Allahabad in the impugned order observed that the petitioner's lease was only for the period of five years, which was renewed for five years for the period from 24.5.2001 to 23.5.2006, hence in view of the provisions of Rules 8(1 )(b) of The U.P.Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules 1963, the lease cannot be renewed for more than the period of the original lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules, the lease could have been granted for the period of 10 years as well as for the period of 15 years, hence the petitioner was entitled for further renewal of five years. He further submitted that the petitioner was not given the opportunity before rejecting the application.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Magistrate has rightly passed the order rejecting the application of the petitioner. There is no dispute regarding the facts between the parties. The petitioner was granted lease for the period of five years from 24.5.2001 to 23.5.2006. After the expiry of the aforesaid period, the petitioner was granted renewal of the lease for the period of five years i.e., 24.5.2001 to 23.5.2006 and an agreement in this regard was executed on 14.9.2004, which has been filed by the petitioner alongwith the writ petition. The petitioner's case is that further renewal was applied, which has been refused. The relevant Rules pertaining to grant of mining lease and renewal of mining lease, are contained in U.P.Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules 1963. Rule 8 (1 )(b) and Rule 12 of the Rules, which are relevant for the purposes the controversy involved in the present writ petition, are being extracted hereunder: "Rule 8. Disposal of application(1) (b) in the case of application for renewal of a mining lease, refuse or renew the mining lease for the whole or part of the area applied for and for such period, not exceeding the period of the original lease, as it may consider proper: Provided that where an application for grant or renewal of a mining lease is refused or the area is reduced, resons therefore shall be recoded and communicated to the applicant. Rule 12. Period of mining lease. (1) Except as provided in sub-rule(2), the period for which a mining lease may be granted shall not exceed ten years. (2) If the State Government if of opinion that in the interests of mineral development it is necessary so to District Officer, it may, for reasons to be recorded, grant a mining lease for any period exceeding 10 years but not exceeding 15 years." Rule-8 (1) deals with renewal of mining lease. According to Rule 8(1 )(b) the renewal of the lease can be granted for the period "not exceeding the period of the original lease". Thus, the rule itself contains a condition for renewal of the lease. The renewal thus, cannot exceed the period of original lease. In the present case, the original lease was for a period of five years and the renewal was already granted to the petitioner for the period from 24.5.2001 to 23.5.2006 for five years.;